Random Running Questions

ecoli

For anyone looking at 5k work here is a great article on training for it, well worth read for all levels;

http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/solving-5k-puzzle?page=single

walshb

I have always felt that real speed 1500 guys could be the best at 5 k if they applied themselves to it. I don't see it as a specialist event. Bekele, for example is the best ever at the distance as regards time, but I would back a real top class 1500 guy over him if the 1500 guy really trained specifically for 5000 metres.

TRR_the_turd

walshb wrote: »

I have always felt that real speed 1500 guys could be the best at 5 k if they applied themselves to it. I don't see it as a specialist event. Bekele, for example is the best ever at the distance as regards time, but I would back a real top class 1500 guy over him if the 1500 guy really trained specifically for 5000 metres.

really not that simple. Best example was Hicham El Guerrouj. World record holder at 1500 with 3.26 (and mile of 3.43) and his best is 12.50 over 5k. And he did train specifically for the 1500. Still a savage time but they are very different events IMO

walshb

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

really not that simple. Best example was Hicham El Guerrouj. World record holder at 1500 with 3.26 (and mile of 3.43) and his best is 12.50 over 5k. And he did train specifically for the 1500. Still a savage time but they are very different events IMO

Great example. I would be confident that if he trained for 5 k he would have beaten the best ever time at the distance. He had the perfect combination of strength and speed. He was a unique 1500 guy. Quite fast, but not lightning like Coe or Morceli, but had a serious engine over the last 500 metres.

walshb

Precision Timing is one company, what's the name of the other company that does chip timing? I am sure there's a few, but I'm trying to remember one in particular.

ecoli

walshb wrote: »

Precision Timing is one company, what's the name of the other company that does chip timing? I am sure there's a few, but I'm trying to remember one in particular.

Probably Championchip

There is also redtagtiming

walshb

ecoli wrote: »

There is also redtagtiming

That's the one. Thanks.

Pacing Mule

Any lads here have the snip ? If so how soon were you out running again ?

ultraman1

Pacing Mule wrote: »

Any lads here have the snip ? If so how soon were you out running again ?

Few easy runs and den Couple of weeks back for full trainin...was more concernd bout riding rather than running

KielyUnusual

How did I somehow know that ultraman1 would be the one to answer that question. Call it female intuition.

Clearlier

walshb wrote: »

Great example. I would be confident that if he trained for 5 k he would have beaten the best ever time at the distance. He had the perfect combination of strength and speed. He was a unique 1500 guy. Quite fast, but not lightning like Coe or Morceli, but had a serious engine over the last 500 metres.

I wouldn't be that confident. Most elite athletes can run very well at distances just above and below their preferred distance. It doesn't automatically follow that they would have been as good or better at the alternative distance.

Mo ran 3:28 for 1500 without AFAIK specifically training for it. I don't think that it's his best distance though.

Inventive User Name

I've had a head cold since Friday (blocked nose, sneezing) and I have a race coming up on Sunday. Any tips on getting rid of it from now till then? If it's still there, how much could it effect my performance?

davedanon

Inventive User Name wrote: »

I've had a head cold since Friday (blocked nose, sneezing) and I have a race coming up on Sunday. Any tips on getting rid of it from now till then? If it's still there, how much could it effect my performance?

A cold is a virus. there is no cure as such. It takes 3-5 days. If it's just the usual bleary head-cold, it shouldn't affect you too much. It certainly isn't 'dangerous' to race with a cold, I don't think.

Inventive User Name

davedanon wrote: »

A cold is a virus. there is no cure as such. It takes 3-5 days. If it's just the usual bleary head-cold, it shouldn't affect you too much. It certainly isn't 'dangerous' to race with a cold, I don't think.

No, not worried about it being dangerous, but I'm going for a pb and my preparation has been great so far. Don't want a little thing like a cold to ruin it!

davedanon

Inventive User Name wrote: »

No, not worried about it being dangerous, but I'm going for a pb and my preparation has been great so far. Don't want a little thing like a cold to ruin it!

Like I said, 3 to 5. It should clear by the weekend.

tunguska

ultraman1 wrote: »

Few easy runs and den Couple of weeks back for full trainin...was more concernd bout riding rather than running

Goes without saying..........

Thargor

Do elasticated ankle support things like this actually do anything for sore ankles the day after a run?

http://www.boots.ie/en/Boots-Elasticated-Ankle-Support-Large_1121359/

rainbow kirby

Anyone seen Kayanos for much less than £100/€120 in non-midget sizes lately?

RacoonQueen

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Anyone seen Kayanos for much less than £100/€120 in non-midget sizes lately?

http://www.sportsdirect.com/asics-gel-kayano-1-ld13-215185?colcode=21518590

http://www.sportsdirect.com/asics-gel-kayano-19-ladies-running-shoes-215264?colcode=21526403

Kayano 1's? :pac:

edit: don't hate me AKW

rainbow kirby

^ Last time I bought runners from Sports Direct they were complete duds, 4th pair of the same model and they were like running on the phone book... Find it hard to trust them!

davedanon

rainbow kirby wrote: »

^ Last time I bought runners from Sports Direct they were complete duds, 4th pair of the same model and they were like running on the phone book... Find it hard to trust them!

You mean they were fakes. Is that what you're saying?

rainbow kirby

They weren't fakes, just a bad pair where it felt like the cushioning was completely flat when I got them.

whelzer

Guys - when should you get new runners? Nearly fell over last night when I checked the Totals on the Garmin - 640KMs. Running in Wave Inspire 10 shoes for all this and whilst I think they are ok, they could be on the way out??

I read on t'internet shoes should be changed anywhere from 200-500 miles. What are peoples actual experience? btw - I have repaired a small rip in the right foot little toe area, seems ok now. The left is starting to go in the same place but is not as bad. Thanks

Clearlier

whelzer wrote: »

Guys - when should you get new runners? Nearly fell over last night when I checked the Totals on the Garmin - 640KMs. Running in Wave Inspire 10 shoes for all this and whilst I think they are ok, they could be on the way out??

I read on t'internet shoes should be changed anywhere from 200-500 miles. What are peoples actual experience? btw - I have repaired a small rip in the right foot little toe area, seems ok now. The left is starting to go in the same place but is not as bad. Thanks

Like with a lot of things it depends.

Some guys run until there are holes in the soles, they're usually light and very stable runners (the people that is). At the other end of the scale are heavy guys whose feet are moving all over the place. The latter tend to wear out a specific part of their shoes very quickly and may only get a couple of hundred miles before needing to change.

It's worth looking at the soles of your shoes and also to analyse whether you're uncomfortable or have any extra aches or pains.

Enduro

That depends on who you want to listen to!

The manufacturers would usually say something like after 500km. However if you apply the minimalist/barefoot philosophy to the question then the answer would probably be to change just before they finally disintegrate.

I've been training on 2 pairs of shoes for about 2-3 years now!

BeepBeep67

Depends on the shoe, my ST5's I always change @ just over the 500mls mark as I can feel that they're lifeless, I've also a pair of Inov-8 Road X-233's with 750+ on them and they seem to want to go on forever.

RoyMcC

I got 1,400 miles out of a pair of Asics once, and they were still wearable and created no issues. Wouldn't recommend that for everyone though.

davedanon

Personally I can never tell whether shoes are 'alive' or 'dead'. I'm not particularly heavy at around 75kg but I wear the outer left heel really badly, probably the legacy of a broken ankle aeons ago. 200 miles seems mental to me. That's maybe 1 month's training? Crazy. I'll give most pairs at least 3 months. By then the heel has worn down a good way, but usually the rest of the shoe is still immaculate. The way I see it is, after three months my shoe has been worn down to where my running action wants it. I really don't feel as though it causes me any extra problems after that point, although I do tend to change anyway. Any excuse to buy new shoes!

wrstan

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Depends on the shoe

^^ this

For me it is very arbitrary and dependent almost entirely on the feel of the shoe. I have abandoned shoes as early as 200 miles (well once) because I just did not like how they felt, and I have clocked 800 miles (and counting) on a pair that I don't want to give up.

I suggest be mindful, but not obsessive of how they feel on a run, and if they still feel good, then they're probably fine.

Probably good to have a couple of pairs that you use in rotation though, it might prolong the life of them, but it'll give you a comparison of how each pair feels.

plodder

I would only change after they become too uncomfortable to wear. For me, that seems to be when the padding around the heel is worn away exposing the hard underneath part. I've often kept shoes long after my big toe has made a big hole in the front mesh. Wouldn't see that as a reason to replace them. I wear a support/stability shoe, and maybe(?) the sole lasts a bit longer than compared to pure cushioned shoes. Not sure about that though.